Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: FBI Gun Ban List Doubles

  1. #1
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    I'm not sure if this is good news or bad news. It does look likecertain states had fallen down on the job in doing what they should have been doing to feed the FBI list. Whoever was responsible for that failure should be fired immediately. Same for whoever is in charge of the holdout states.

    I think it's fair to say that the more accurate and valid the FBI Gun Ban list is, the better it is for gun owners, carriers, buyers, sellers.

    I do like the use of the word"ballooned".... :P

    ETA

    Mukasey: FBI Gun Ban List Doubles


    By Dan Eggen
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Thursday, November 29, 2007; 12:50 PM


    Since the Virginia Tech shootings last spring, nearly 220,000 names have been added to an FBI list of people prohibited from buying guns because of mental health problems, the Justice Department announced today.

    The disclosure, from the prepared text for a speech this afternoon by Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, underscores the size of the background check loophole that allowed Seung Hui Cho to purchase the handguns he used to kill 32 people and himself at Virginia Tech in April.

    A state court had found Cho dangerously mentally ill, but the information was not provided to the FBI database checked by the gun dealers who sold him the weapons.

    The Justice Department said today that the FBI's Mental Defective File has ballooned from 175,000 names in June to nearly 400,000. The names are included as a subset of the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS.

    The vast majority of the new individuals were identified by California, which provided more than 200,000 names to the FBI in October, the Justice Department said. Ohio provided more than 7,000 new names, while the number of states reporting mental health data to the FBI grew from 22 to 28.

    "Instant background checks are essential to keeping guns out of the wrong hands, while still protecting the privacy of our citizens," Mukasey says in prepared remarks released by the Justice Department before his appearance at a conference of state attorneys general in Utah. "But as we learned in the tragedy at Virginia Tech, the checks must be accurate and complete to be effective. We're making progress, and I hope that even more states will submit this information."

    Federal law prohibits gun sales to people judged to be "mentally defective," but enforcement of the requirement has been haphazard. The Virginia Tech shooting has prompted a push by federal lawmakers and many states to improve monitoring of those covered by the ban. The House has overwhelmingly approved legislation that would encourage states to submit timely background check data to the FBI, but the measure has stalled in the Senate.

    In Virginia, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) tightened a loophole in April by ordering state agencies to block gun sales to those involuntarily committed for inpatient or outpatient mental health treatment. Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) also issued a new gun purchase regulation that requires buyers to sign a waiver that releases mental health records to state police.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112901238.html


  2. #2
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    It's been said before, and it will be said again......background checks, waiting periods, limits on what guns you can buy or how often.....it's all an infringement of our RKBA, and does NOTHING to prevent crime or protect anyone. Period.

    As it's been seen time and time again, those that are determined to get a weapon, whether they are allowed to or not, WILL get a weapon. All the checks and "feel-good" laws in the world will make not a lick of difference. But that's OK, believe what you like, and the rights will keep dwindling until one day that man with a badge shows at the door to take YOUR guns away....then maybe you'll care, but it'll be too late.

    Jeez....enemies from within......

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    If all these folks are too dangerous to own firearms, why are they allowed to roam free in society?

  4. #4
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    longwatch wrote:
    If all these folks are too dangerous to own firearms, why are they allowed to roam free in society?
    Why do you link the two states? Can a person not be properly regulated to not own a gun and be able to be at liberty in our society?

    If you're saying the two states are mutually exclusive, make your case.




  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    longwatch wrote:
    If all these folks are too dangerous to own firearms, why are they allowed to roam free in society?
    Why do you link the two states? Can a person not be properly regulated to not own a gun and be able to be at liberty in our society?

    If you're saying the two states are mutually exclusive, make your case.


    I think the point was if someone is to dangerous to be trusted with a gun, they should be considered to dangerous to roam free. Right now the laws are saying "this man cannot be trusted with a gun, but he is allowed access to knives, ropes, cars, poisons, etc.".

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    QED
    I think the point was if someone is to[sic] dangerous to be trusted with a gun, they should be considered to[sic] dangerous to roam free. Right now the laws are saying "this man cannot be trusted with a gun, but he is allowed access to knives, ropes, cars, poisons, etc.".
    +1

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    Are you talking about the people at the FBI, the states who control the lists, or both that should be fired?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    , Arizona, USA
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    interesting, if vague, argument. also interesting that you throw it out there without offering any solution(s). what do we do - lock up everyone who is not mentallywell enoughto buy a firearm?

    i know you are talking about the mentrally "dangerous" but that is a rather fuzzy label. i suppose you would need a psych doctor's sign-off on it.

    imho



    papasmee

  9. #9
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    bohdi wrote:
    Are you talking about the people at the FBI, the states who control the lists, or both that should be fired?
    If you'reasking me, I meant the state people. My context is only the names/data that the states should have fed into the FBI database. The metric is those names now accurately and validly added (or about to be added)that should have been in there to begin with.

    My understanding is that some states copped various pleas (low priorities, insufficient personnel, lack of funding, legalconstraints,etc.) in regard to their failure to provide the data they are now providing.

    All those state people should be fired immediately. They erred badly.

    What do you think about the topic, bohdi?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    450

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    longwatch wrote:
    If all these folks are too dangerous to own firearms, why are they allowed to roam free in society?
    Why do you link the two states? Can a person not be properly regulated to not own a gun and be able to be at liberty in our society?

    If you're saying the two states are mutually exclusive, make your case.


    Is an evil/unstableperson only dangerous if they own a gun? Is it the gun or the person who introduces the risk of violence/crime?



    It's pretty obvious that people are the problem, not inanimate objects which could equally be used for good or evil, therefore it is people who should be banned if they are indeed considered a danger.

    This is akin to forbidding axe murderers from entering hardware stores, instead of placing them in prison.

  11. #11
    Guest

    Post imported post

    A recent GOA letter/alert... For what it's worth. Sooner or later it may be _us_ added to the system for some backdoor reason. 'Find a reason. Any reason'..

    Your a nut andshould be on the list if you:

    have a gun

    have bullets.

    have more than one gun.

    jokingly said something unpolitically correct.

    open carry.

    carry concealed.

    live in a high crime area.

    shot someone in self defense.

    shot a dog in self defense. ahem.

    shot yourself in self defense.

    Anyways..

    .................................................. .................................................. .................................

    (Senator) Coburn states in his letter that the Veterans Affairs continues to
    send the names of "approximately 1,000 additional veterans" to the
    Department of Justice every month. According to the Congressional
    Research Service, Coburn says, this has resulted in "approximately
    140,000 Veterans" being added into the NICS background check system.

    "This situation is concerning to me," he continues, "as
    the vast
    majority of these veterans have committed no crime." Coburn
    correctly notes that if these veterans should continue to own a
    firearm, they could "unknowingly be in violation" of federal law.

    Interestingly, Coburn notes that the VA gun ban for veterans is not
    based on their being a "danger to him/herself or others" but rather
    that they supposedly can't manage their own financial affairs.

    Coburn ends his letter with a very pointed request: "I respectfully
    request that you share with me your plans to prevent the release of
    more veterans' names without due process."

    That's the key: these brave souls are being denied their gun rights
    WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. Some have claimed that this bill would provide
    relief for those who are being unjustly denied. Of course, this is
    very questionable since Congress has, since 1993, defunded the
    ability of the BATFE to restore the rights of veterans and other
    victims of gun control. (This is the result of a Chuck Schumer
    amendment.)

    Certainly, GOA would support avenues to provide relief. But the
    Veterans Disarmament Act is not the vehicle to do this, since the
    bill actually CHANGES federal law to LEGALLY BAN those 140,000
    veterans from owning firearms. (1) Once the bill is enacted and
    those veterans and other Americans are LEGALLY DISARMED, the bill
    then provides some limited avenues for pursuing relief -- although
    Americans will face an uphill battle as they will have to spend tens
    of thousands of dollars pressing their case in court where THEY WILL
    HAVE THE BURDEN of proving their innocence.

    Even if these expensive court battles prove successful, they are
    still not guaranteed to get their gun rights back. Sen. Schumer can
    simply offer another amendment which prevents the FBI from removing
    names from the NICS system, just as his 1993 amendment still defunds
    the ability of the federal government to grant relief TO THIS DAY.


    Sarah Brady Is Lobbying Hard For The McCarthy-Schumer Bill

    It's no wonder that the Brady Bunch is plugging so hard for this
    bill. Several news agencies have stated that passage of this bill
    would represent the "first major gun control law in more than a
    decade". (2)

    Sarah Brady wants this bill bad. Her organization led a bunch of
    Virginia Tech survivors to Chuck Schumer's office this week to get
    media attention in favor of the Veterans Disarmament Act.

    And she sent out an e-mail last week urging members to donate to her
    organization, thus helping to get the McCarthy-Schumer bill passed.
    "In July, the U.S. House of Representatives took a courageous first
    step to keep guns out of the wrong hands by passing HR 2640, the NICS
    Improvement Act," Brady said. "The Brady Campaign is working full
    force to convince the U.S. Senate to pass this bill immediately."



  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    Well, I for one am pretty sickened by this.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

    Post imported post

    In Virginia, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) tightened a loophole in April by ordering state agencies to block gun sales to those involuntarily committed for inpatient or outpatient mental health treatment. Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) also issued a new gun purchase regulation that requires buyers to sign a waiver that releases mental health records to state police.

    How do you get someone "involuntarily committed"?

    So if someone else "involuntarily commits" you, you automatically lose your gun rights?

    I say we start "involuntarily committing" people like state police captains, police cheifs, politicians such as Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, and members of his personal bodyguards, etc. to see how long they keep bitching about blocking gun sales.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    Sadly, it's not that simple. Here, you need 2 shrinks and a judge to sign off on it, with some judicial review. Gives "fear of commitment" a whole new context though, eh?

    -ljp

  15. #15
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    "Instant background checks are essential to keeping guns out of the wrong hands, while still protecting the privacy of our citizens," Mukasey says in prepared remarks released by the Justice Department before his appearance at a conference of state attorneys general in Utah. "But as we learned in the tragedy at Virginia Tech, the checks must be accurate and complete to be effective. We're making progress, and I hope that even more states will submit this information."
    Since when does the Federal government own the citizens?

    possessive pronoun

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    If I'm understanding this right, though, it seems that the only thing this list is doing is arbitrarily adding more people to the "ban" list. Let me clarify: as each state has its own criteria for who is banned for mental health reasons from purchasing a firearm, it's not really going to be too uniform... And what happens if a person who is banned in one state moves to another state where his mental health history makes him eligible to purchase a firearm? :?

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    If I'm understanding this right, though, it seems that the only thing this list is doing is arbitrarily adding more people to the "ban" list. Let me clarify: as each state has its own criteria for who is banned for mental health reasons from purchasing a firearm, it's not really going to be too uniform... And what happens if a person who is banned in one state moves to another state where his mental health history makes him eligible to purchase a firearm? :?
    Although the states vary in what they report, this information is usually the result of judicial proceedings in which a person is adjudicated mentally defective in one of several ways. (see below)I don't believe moving would cause anyone to be removed from the list if the state in which the adjudication was made reports to the NICS.

    In some types of cases (i.e,, involuntary commitment proceedings), the proceedings are usually to be brought in the state where the person lives. However other cases (i.e., determinations of incompetence to stand trialor judgments of not guilty by reason of insanity, mental disease, or mental defect in criminal cases) have no relationship towhether the person is a resident of the adjudicating state.

    Of course, we've also had extensive discussions on other threads about the vagueness of the "adjudicated a mentally defective" class of prohibited possessors under federal law, but that is a topic to remain in those threads (although I absolutely agree with Mike that we need to better define this term to include appropriate due process protections just as has been done for felons & domestic violence offenders, see 18 USC 921(a)(20), (33)).But, as with other classes of prohibited possessors like convicted felons, some names are submitted erroneously. In other cases, names are not submitted properly but this does not affect a person's prohibited possessor status. Whether a person is ultimately a prohibited possessor and may thus be prosecuted under 18 USC 922(g) is independent of NICS listings. Getting an approval from NICS at a dealer or having a concealed handgun license (even a Brady-exempt CHL) provides no defense to someone who is a prohibited possessor but whose status was not known at the time the NICS check was performed.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •